Sorry Karen, you’re wrong, in both your original whining and by pretending that you are not responsible for proving your claim that someone is a liar.
The original trigger for you was when CodeToad correctly posted that you must be paid for a non-compete to be enforceable. I realize you might get triggered from hearing that and this, not be able to read the following sentences, but it’s true.
You must be provided some “consideration”. That could be an outright cash payment, promotion, bonus, etc, but they’ve got to give you something for it. Read it for yourself.
https://www.upcounsel.com/non-compete-enforceability
FTA:
“ In most states, the non-compete agreement cannot be enforced unless the employee receives a payment or benefit in exchange for signing it. Some states only enforce trade secret protection but invalidate work restrictions. About 33 percent of states restrict non-compete agreements and do not enforce them because they prevent individuals from being able to work for a living and support themselves. The employer has the burden of proof to show that the restrictions it has placed on the employee are reasonable. ”
Admit it, you’re wrong, I don’t expect you will, as Karen’s rarely do, but you’re wrong and look foolish because of it.
No non-compete is going to stand up to the point of starving you out. They have never been THAT powerful, and are even weaker when the employer is the one instigating the separation.
Reading is DEFINITELY not your strong point. Contrary to what you claim, CodeTode didn't post: "you must be paid for a non-compete to be enforceable." That's just you just slightly rewriting what he said.
Instead he posted: "Non-compete clauses are only valid when getting paid; USSC."
He later doubled down on the stupid: "Once payment stops you have been laid off and that is when non-competes stop. USSC ruled that the company then no longer finds value in your services and non-competes fall apart."
He made two distinct claims. Claim 1, was that there was a Supreme Court decision holding this. Claim 2 was that once your payment stops, as in a layoff, that a non-compete is unenforceable.
I was pointing out that:
1. There is no USSC case saying anything close to that.
2. Layoff or termination is not the standard for determining enforceability.
All that you have done is rewrote what CodeTode said, and then posted something that you don't actually understand.
All consideration means is that you are receiving something of value. In some cases, that is a direct case payment. In other cases, it can be the very fact that the job that you signed up for has a non-compete and continued employment is your consideration.
My posts to CodeTode, were in response to his two lies. They have nothing to do with whether United's actions are valid. You are playing a typical game that losers play when people who are more intelligent than them own them. You simply rewrite what was written and then try to argue that instead.
I never commented at all on what United is doing. Instead, I commented on the fact that 1. There is no USSC case. 2. Termination and Layoff aren't the standard in enforcing non-competes.
If your twisted rendition of consideration were correct, then the 4 cases that I provided you, would have turned out differently.
Once again, people like you and CodeTode need to quit playing internet lawyer.
#Onceyoucanpassabarexamyoucancomebackandtalktome
:-)